💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 893.gmi captured on 2022-06-04 at 02:59:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Organizational dissent is the expression of disagreement or contradictory
opinions about organizational practices and policies (Kassing, 1998). Since
dissent involves disagreement it can lead to conflict, which if not resolved,
can lead to violence and struggle. As a result, many organizations send the
message verbally or nonverbally that dissent is discouraged. However,
recent studies have shown that dissent serves as an important monitoring force
within organizations. Dissent can be a warning sign for employee
dissatisfaction or organizational decline. Redding (1985) found that
receptiveness to dissent allows for corrective feedback to monitor unethical
and immoral behavior, impractical and ineffectual organizational practices and
polices, poor and unfavorable decision making, and insensitivity to employees
workplace needs and desires. Furthermore, Eilerman (Jan. 2006) argues that the
hidden costs of silencing dissent include: wasted and lost time, reduced
decision quality, emotional and relationship costs, and decreased job
motivation. Perlow (2003) found that employee resentment can lead to a decrease
in productivity and creativity which can result in the organization losing
money, time, and resources.
Types of dissent
There are three types of dissent: articulated, latent, and displaced (Kassing,
1998).
Articulated: Involves expressing dissent openly and clearly in a constructive
fashion to members of an organization that can effectively influence
organization adjustment. This may include supervisors, management, and
corporate officers
Latent: Employees resort to expressing dissent to either their coworkers or
other ineffectual audiences within the organization. Employees employ this
route when they desire to voice their opinions but lack sufficient avenues to
effectively express themselves.
Displaced: Involves expressing dissent to external audiences, such as family
and friends, rather than media or political sources sought out by
whistle-blowers.
Factors influencing dissent expression
Kassing (1997) states there are three factors that influence which dissent
strategy an employee will decide to use:
1. Individual
2. Relational
3. Organizational
[edit] Individual influences
Individual influences concern qualities that employees bring to the
organization, expectations they have acquired, and behaviors they enact within
organizations.
Preference to Avoid Conflict
Roberto (2005) claims that employees may have a preference for avoiding
conflict. Therefore, they find confrontation in a public setting uncomfortable.
Individual s sense of powerlessness and senses of right and wrong are
contributing factors (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).
Verbal Aggressiveness & Argumentativeness
Kassing and Avtgis (1999) demonstrated that an individual s verbal
aggressiveness and argumentativeness influence the manner in which an
individual will approach expressing dissent. Verbal aggressiveness involves
attacking another person s self concept. This may include character attacks,
competence attacks, ridicule, and threats. Argumentativeness, on the other
hand, is when an individual argues about controversial issues.
Individuals will choose their strategy for expressing dissent based on the
strength of their arguments. Kassing & Avtgis (1999) found an individual who is
more argumentative and less verbally aggressive is prone to use articulated
dissent. On the other hand, an individual who lacks argumentative skills will
resort to using a less direct and more aggressive strategy, latent dissent.
Work Locus of Control
Work locus of control can also be a contributing influence. An individual with
an internal locus of control orientation believes that they have control over
their destiny. They feel the only way to bring about a desired outcome is to
act. Individuals who see their lives as being controlled by outside forces
demonstrate an external locus of control (Robbins, 2005). Kassing s (2001)
study demonstrated that employees with an internal locus of control used
articulated dissent whereas an employee with an external locus of control
preferred to use latent dissent.
[edit] Relational influences
Relational influences include the types and qualities of relationships people
maintain within their organization.
Employee Relationships
Employees develop and maintain various relationships within organizations.
These relationships can influence the choices employees make about expressing
dissent. Employees may feel uncomfortable voicing their dissenting opinions in
the presence of others because they feel the best way to preserve relationships
is to keep quiet. Homogenous groups also place pressure on individuals to
conform. Since many people fear being embarrassed in front of their peers, they
can easily be lulled into consensus. (Roberto, 2005).
Superior-Subordinate Relationship
The superior-subordinate relationship is an important relational factor.
Employees who perceive they had a higher-quality relationship with their
supervisors are more often to use articulated dissent. They feel their
supervisors respect their opinions and that they have mutual influence and
persuasion over the outcome of organizational decisions. Conversely, employees
that perceive their relationship with their supervisor as low-quality will
resort to latent dissent. They feel that there is no room to voice their
opinions (Kassing, 2000).
Management which models the use of articulated dissent contributes to the use
of articulated dissent among its employees (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).
Subordinates who witness their supervisors successfully articulating dissent
may be more likely and more willing to adopt similar strategies. However, a
supervisor must keep in mind that expressing dissent can be very difficult and
uncomfortable for lower-level managers and employees. Therefore, supervisors
should not only take actions to encourage dissent, they must be willing to seek
out individuals willing to say no to them. (Roberto, 2005).
[edit] Organizational influences
Organizational influences concern how organizations relate to their employees.
[edit] Organizational norms
Once an employee joins an organization, it is through assimilation that they
learn the norms of the organization. Perlow (2003) states that organizations
placing high value on being polite and avoiding confrontation can cause
employees to be uncomfortable expressing their differences. Employees make
assessments about motives and restraints when others dissent and use this
knowledge to inform their own decisions about when and how to use dissent
(Kassing, 2001). Furthermore, some corporate assumptions are accepted without
questioning. For example, employees will defer to the expert s opinion
(Roberto, 2005).
[edit] Organizational identification
Organizational identification and workplace freedom of speech has an effect on
an individual s choice of expressing dissent (Kassing, 2000). If an individual
highly identifies itself with the organization they are more likely to use the
dissent strategy that mirrors the organization s values. If the organization
demonstrates it values dissent and promotes workplace freedom of speech, the
highly identified employee will demonstrate articulate dissent.
[edit] Openness
An organization that limits the opportunities for employees to voice their
opinion, demonstrates contradictory expectations, and gives the perception that
openness is not favored, will lead to employees to select latent dissent
strategies (Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).
Perceptions of organizational dissenters
The perceptions of supervisors and coworkers can be used to further determine
an individual s choice of dissent strategy. Employees will take notice of other
dissenters and the consequences of their actions and will use this information
to refine their sense of organizational tolerance for dissent, to determine
what issues merit dissent, and to inform their future dissent strategy choices
(Kassing, 2001).
Kassing (2001) found that articulated and latent dissenters were perceived
differently. People perceived articulated dissenters to be more satisfied, more
committed, possess higher quality relationships with their supervisors, and
seen as employees who believed they have influence within their organizations
than latent dissenters. Furthermore, articulated dissenters, compared to latent
dissenters, were perceived to be less verbally aggressive.
Triggering events
Organizational dissent begins with a triggering event. This triggering event is
what propels individuals to speak out and share their opinions about
organizational practices or politics. An individual will consider the issue of
dissent and whom it concerns before deciding what dissent strategy to use. The
types of issues that cause employees to dissent vary. The majority of employees
expressed dissent due to resistance of organizational change. Other factors
include employee treatment, decision making tactics, inefficiency, role/
responsibility, resources, ethics, performance evaluations, and preventing harm
(Kassing, 2002).
In addition to the dissent-triggering event, the focus of the issues can be
relevant to how one expresses dissent. Kassing (2002) believed individuals may
focus on improving matters within the organization that affect themselves
(self-focused), they may focus on the welfare of the organization of the whole
(other-focused) or they may focus on issues concerning their co-workers
(neutral).
Articulated Dissent
An individual will use upward articulate dissent in response to functional and
other-focused dissent-triggering events. Organizations are more attractive to
upward articulate dissenting when it is in regards to functional aspects. This
type of dissent gives the perception that dissenters are being constructive and
are concerned with issues of principle rather than personal-advantage . It
allows the employee to signal their commitment to cooperative goals.
Latent Dissent
Individuals may also express latent dissent in response to functional and
other-focused dissent-triggering. They determine to use latent instead of
articulate when they believe that management is not receptive to employee
dissent. This indicates that individuals would use articulate dissent if they
feel those channels are not available and accessible. Latent dissent is also
used in protective dissent triggering events.
Displaced Dissent
Individuals will readily used displaced dissent regardless of the focus or
triggering event. External audiences provide individuals with a low risk
alternative to express dissent. The downfall for organizations, however, is the
loss of employee feedback. If an employee expresses their dissent to outsiders,
the organization will not hear about it and will assume that less dissent
exists within the organization. When an organization fails to address potential
issues, employees may then view the organization as discouraging dissent and
will resort to using either latent or displaced dissent in the future.
Benefits of upward dissent
In 2002, Kassing s research found upward dissent can be beneficial to both the
organization and the individuals involved.
Organizational Benefits
Upward dissent serves as an important monitoring force and allows the
organization to identify problems and issues before they become damaging.
Individual Benefits
Employees who express upward dissent seem more satisfied, to have better work
relationships, and to identify with their organization.
Upward dissent strategies
Not all organizations are designed to recognize and respond to employee
dissent. Furthermore, employees consider expressing upward dissent as a risky
proposition . In several studies Kassing (1997, 1998,) found that employees
decided to express dissent by considering whether or not they will be perceived
as constructive or adversarial, as well as the risk of retaliation associated
with dissenting. In 2002, Kassing found that once an individual decides to
strategically express dissent, they use five different categories:
direct-factual appeal, repetition, solution presentation, circumvention, and
threatening resignation.
Direct-Factual Appeal
When an employee uses factual information derived from physical evidence,
knowledge of organizational policies and practices, and personal work
experience, they use the direct-factual appeal strategy. This strategy is
considered active and constructive due to the fact that the employees seek
evidence and base their assumptions on facts, evidence, and first-hand
experience. Employees avoid using verbal attacks and unsupported data.
Repetition
Repetition involves expressing dissent about a topic/issue repeatedly at
different points in time. This strategy is often used when an employee feels
nothing is being done to correct the original articulated problem/issue and
feel that the issue warrants being repeated. The problem with this strategy is
that repetition in a short period can be seen as destructive. Especially if the
abbreviated time frame does not allow the supervisor enough time to respond.
However, if repetition is used over an extended time period it may be
considered active-constructive since it may serve as a reminder to the
supervisor.
Solution Presentation Strategy
The solution presentation strategy is deemed as active-constructive since an
employee will provided solutions, with or without supporting evidence. This
allows the supervisor to be receptive to the expressed dissent and indicates
that you have put effort into solving the problem/issue.
Circumvention
If an employee feels their immediate supervisors are not responsive to dissent,
they may employ the circumvention strategy. This entails the employee choosing
to dissent to an audience higher in the organizational hierarchy. If an
employee uses this strategy before giving their supervisor they opportunity to
handle the situation first, this strategy can be deemed active-destructive.
However, when used to express dissent regarding unethical practices it is
considered active-constructive since the dissent is issue driven.
Threatening Resignation
Threatening resignation can also be seen as both active-constructive and
active-deconstructive. This strategy involves the employee threatening to
resign as a form of leverage for obtaining responsiveness and action from
supervisors and management . When used to express your concerns about unsafe
and intolerable work conditionsit is deemed constructive. However, this
strategy will appear to be deconstructive when the managers view the threat as
antagonistic and unprincipled .
Encouraging dissent in the workplace
There are some tricks that leaders can utilize to develop their employees
attitudes, knowledge, and skills that are needed to foster constructive
dissent.
Change Decision-Making Focus
Leaders should focus on How I should make the decision instead of What
decision should I make . In the end, if they perform the following steps the
decision the leader should make will be obvious.
Encourage Constructive Conflict
Leaders need to ensure that conflict remains constructive. That is, they must
stimulate task-oriented disagreement and debate while trying to minimize
interpersonal conflict. Eilerman (2006) claims that the way conflict is handled
will determine whether the outcome is constructive or destructive. According to
Roberto (2005) leaders can create constructive conflict by taking concrete
steps before, during, and after a critical decision process.
Establish Ground Rules
Before the process begins, leaders can establish ground rules for how people
should interact during the deliberations, clarify the role that each individual
will play in the discussions, and build mutual respect. Asking individuals to
role play or to become the devil s advocate ahead of time can help reduce
affective conflict while also stimulating constructive conflict (Roberto,
2005). Macy and Neal (1995) claim that since the role of the devil s advocate
is to present convincing counterarguments and to challenge the main position,
its benefit lies in the fact that it automatically builds conflict into the
decision-making process.
Intervene When Necessary
During deliberations, leaders can intervene when debates get heated. They might
redirect people s attention and frame the debate in a different light,
redescribe the ideas and data in novel ways so as to enhance understanding and
spark new branches of discussion or may revisit ideas in hopes of finding
common ground (Roberto, 2005). Deutsch and Coleman (2000) explain that
reframing allows conflicting parties to see themselves as being in a
collaborative, while producing a positive atmosphere that is conductive to
creativity and one that increases the potential solutions available.
Reflect on the Process
After a decision process ends, leaders should reflect on the process and try to
derive lessons learned regarding how to manage conflict constructively. Since
reflections can lead to new insight, individuals must take time to critically
assess the experience. They also must address and repair any hurt feelings and
damaged relationships that may not have been apparent during the process
itself. If these relationships are not repaired, trust could be lost which
could negatively affect the effort of the next collaboration. Additionally,
leaders should celebrate constructive conflict management and help others to
remember the success of the process (Roberto, 2005).
Establish a Supportive Climate
Bennis (2004) emphasizes that corporate leaders must promise their followers
that they will never be devalued or punished because they express dissent. All
too often in the past, organizations would marginalize or terminate any
employee who voiced an opposing view. Additionally, leaders should reward
dissent and punish conflict avoiders. Anyone who clearly withholds a dissenting
view only to obstruct the implementation later should be held responsible.
When leaders establish a climate of openness, they make constructive conflict a
habit in the organization and develop behaviors which can be sustained over
time. Kassing s (2000) research found that when leaders emphasize workplace
freedom of speech, employees openly and clearly express dissent to audiences
that are responsible for organizational adjustment . However, for leaders to
ensure this type of sustainability, they need to not only change the way they
make decisions, but they must develop a pipeline of leaders who approach
decision making differently (Roberto, 2005).
Situations that may undermine a leader's efforts
Even if a leader takes all the steps indicated above they must be aware of four
situations that can undermine their efforts (Roberto, 2005).
Crowding Out Response Time
Leaders should avoid crowding out opportunities to respond or discuss policies.
Overloading an agenda can decrease the amount of time that is available for an
individual to express their view.
Appointing the Same Devil s Advocate Every Time
Employing the same person as devil s advocate can cause the view that it is an
empty ritual . It is seen as being done for procedural reasons instead of
seeking dissenting views.
Allowing Too Much Time for Subgroups
Leaders should not allow employees subgroups to have too much time before
coming together as a group. Doing so can cause the employees to become attached
to an argument and as a result they may not be open to other ideas.
Focusing on Qualitative Data
Leaders should avoid focusing on qualitative data. The employees may become
more focused on the data than the real issue(s).
Whistle-blowing
Whistle-blowing is a subset of dissent. It involves the expression of dissent
to external organizations such as media and political avenues that have the
power to take corrective action. Kassing (2000) believes that the
whistle-blowing process begins at the superior-subordinate relationship. If a
superior response to an employee s effort to dissent is negative this may cause
the employee to seek other avenues of dissent. In fact, evidence indicates that
only as a last resort do the dissendents finally go public with their tales
(Bennis, 2004, Kassing, 2000).
Whistleblowers are often high-performing employees who believe they are doing
their job (Martin, 2005). They just want to bring people s attention to a
problem that is potentially harmful or unethical. Despite this, whistleblowers
are perceived negatively and suffer grave consequences. They are often
ostracized, harassed, and attacked by their superiors and coworkers. They face
termination, financial losses, stress, relationship breakdown, and health
problems. Even worse, few whistleblowers seem to bring about any change. The
organization seems to put all their efforts into destroying the whistleblower
while ignoring the original problem. The organization will take great measures
to cover-up the problem, devalue the target, reinterpret the events, and
intimidated and/or bribe the whistleblowers (Martin, 2005).
Organizations need to realize that internal dissent is not itself a crisis, but
rather priceless insurance against disaster. Until the ugly headlines appear
and the consequences are unavoidable, companies too often forget that they will
suffer far more for ignoring their principled dissendents than by giving them a
hearing (Bennis, 2004).